"The disposition of all power is to abuses, nor does it at all mend the matter that its possessors are a majority. Unrestrained political authority, though it be confided to masses, cannot be trusted without positive limitations, men in bodies being but an aggregation of the passions, weaknesses and interests of men as individuals." ~ James Fenimore Cooper
These Are the Troops I Support
'The Republican Party has been reduced to one principle ' its own power. It protects the Bush regime from accountability and covers up its lies and misdeeds. Under the myths and lies that enshroud 9/11, the Democrats have collapsed as an opposition party.' ~ Paul Craig Roberts
The US mainstream media, from time to time, projects New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice as possible presidential candidates in 2008. Suppose these women both won the nominations of their respective (sic) parties?
Which would be the lesser of two evils? Condi or Hillary? Madam Death or Ms. Walking War Crime? Call them the lesser of two toxins. Like comparing depleted uranium to anthrax: which poison would YOU rather have kill you?
Madam Death, you remember, was the woman who claimed no one at the National Security Administration (NSA), which she headed, had ever considered madmen or terrorists would ever hijack airplanes and crash them into skyscrapers as fuel-laden suicide bombs. But only a year before, the Pentagon had war-gamed just such a scenario.
Madam Death, promoted to Secretary of State (SOS), now tours the world in dominatrix garb, lecturing foreign presidents and prime ministers. She lectures them about the joys of democracy, I suppose. I mean she did whole-heartedly conspire to bring democracy to a quarter-million (estimated) dead Iraqis and the 20,000 dead or wounded US servicemen. Not even 'terrorist' democracy Hamas can compete with those numbers. Not even in a hundred years.
When not failing as NSA director, Condaleeza Rice fails miserably as Secretary of State. Perhaps Condi could outdo her mentor and fail dismally as president.
Perhaps that is the Republican master plan all along. By fixing the next national election as they fixed the previous two, the Republicans could foist another failure onto American citizens--only this time a woman. And God, what a failure, incompetent bungler, liar and menace to society. If Rice became US president, we wouldn't have another woman president for 50-100 years--if the nation lasted that long, which I doubt.
If Madam Death represents the best the Republicans can imagine, that party really is more diabolical than I thought. One can only dream of a resurrected Madison or Monroe or Jefferson. Instead we have, not simply mediocrities, but menaces to society.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton, Ms. Walking War Crime, is the Stepford wife of candidates. She is the Imelda of the East Coast, the Iron Maiden of Manhattan, the Dragon Lady of the Dems, altogether devoid of conscience and far scarier (if that is possible!) than Condaleeza Rice.
While Rice is incompetent and thus dangerous, Clinton is dangerous because she is competent but even more devoid of ethics. Consider, during the reign of Bubba Bill: How often did we hear Hillary Clinton speak out against the Iraq sanctions that cost 500,000 toddlers, infants and newborns their lives? Cruella Deville herself, Madeline Albright, another abysmal failure and mass murderer, admitted that half a million kids was 'worth it.' If Saddam Hussein wouldn't play ball with the boys in DC, then by God his countrymen would pay (Iraqi kids actually).
And Ms. Walking War Crime--Hillary Clinton--did nothing, never spoke up or uttered a word of public protest. I suppose a half million young kids weren't worth saving--not to a so-called liberal Democrat or, for that matter, the born-again hypocrites who impeached her husband.
Ms. Walking War Crime positioned herself as presidential material--in the minds of the malodorous Democrats--and won the Senate seat in New York state. Like a lot of duplicitous Dems, she never once--not once--spoke out against the obvious, government coordinated mass murder of 3,000 of her New York constituents down in Manhattan on 9-11.
Why would she want to do that? What would she have to gain, but her immortal soul and everlasting respect?
Instead, by agreeing to the official government (or New World Order) version of events, Hillary positions herself as a good little soldier, willing to take orders and follow commands. If the master planners who control US elections indeed decide a Democrat should 'win' the next faked election in 2008, what better candidate than a Stepford wife, one who condones war crimes and votes for preemptive foreign wars?
Not only that but Hillary positively beams, appearing as rosy as a fresh apple pie, while Condi scowls and looks mean and scary. Which bitch would YOU prefer?
Okay, but enough of these minor character flaws. Now for the talking points, those contentious differences that make televised debates so enjoyable. How do they differ?
If you are keeping score at home, Condi was FOR the war with Iraq. Hillary was FOR the war with Iraq. Condi was FOR the war with Afghanistan. Hillary was FOR the war with Afghanistan. Condi was FOR the PATRIOT Act. Hillary was FOR the PATRIOT Act. Condi is FOR sanctions and possible preemptive war with Iran. Hillary is FOR sanctions and possible preemptive war with Iran. Not only that but Hillary, if elected, wants to INCREASE troop levels in Iraq. No word on what Condi wants to do. Escalate worldwide war, probably.
And both Condi and Hillary are FOR unquestioning support of Israel in whatever they do.
So there you have it. The differences between the two women do not exist, much like the difference between their MALE counterparts of both political parties. So pick your bitch; certainly Diebold already has.